From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 08:37:39 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [patch 2/5] mm: fault vs invalidate/truncate race fix In-Reply-To: <20061012033358.GC22558@wotan.suse.de> Message-ID: References: <20061010121314.19693.75503.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20061010121332.19693.37204.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20061010213843.4478ddfc.akpm@osdl.org> <452C838A.70806@yahoo.com.au> <20061010230042.3d4e4df1.akpm@osdl.org> <20061011165717.GB5259@wotan.suse.de> <20061011172120.GC5259@wotan.suse.de> <20061012033358.GC22558@wotan.suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , Nick Piggin , Linux Memory Management , Linux Kernel List-ID: On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Nick Piggin wrote: > > > Are you saying that something like this would be preferable? > > I think so, it is neater and clearer. I actually didn't even bother relocking > and checking the page again on readpage error so got rid of quite a bit of > code. Well, the readpage error should be rare (and for the _normal_ case we just do the "wait_on_page_locked()" thing). And I think we should lock the page in order to do the truncation check, no? But I don't have any really strong feelings. I'm certainly ok with the patch I sent out. How about putting it through -mm? Here's my sign-off: Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds if you want to send it off to Andrew (or if Andrew wants to just take it himself ;) Btw, how did you even notice this? Just by reading the source, or because you actually saw multiple errors reported? Linus -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org